FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dr Judy Wood files Qui Tam against NIST
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:49 pm    Post subject: Dr Judy Wood files Qui Tam against NIST Reply with quote

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_071011_9_2f11_scholar _files__22.htm

October 11, 2007

9/11 Scholar files "Qui Tam" lawsuit against NIST

By Jim Fetzer

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) October 11, 2007 – According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, on September 12, 2007, the day after the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), Federal Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York signed a court order "unsealing" a 9/11 complaint filed by Dr. Judy Wood against the National Institute of Standards and Technology on April 25, 2007. “This may prove to be a crucial turning points in exposing the official cover-up of actually happened on that tragic day,” observed Fetzer.

The complaint alleges that contractors hired by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, violated the so-called False Claims Act in their work originally intended to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.” Dr. Wood is suing on behalf of the United States of America because the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which represents "the government," declined to intervene in the case, a so-called “Qui Tam” lawsuit, Fetzer said.

With the case unsealed, steps in the litigation now can be reported to the public in the same matter as any lawsuit pending in a federal court, according to Jerry V. Leaphart, Attorney at Law, who is representing Dr. Wood in these proceedings. Leaphart, who has been admitted to the bar in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, recognized that the situation was ripe for a Qui tam suit in light of Dr. Wood’s research, which contradicts the official NIST report.

According to Leaphart, Qui Tam is a legal provision under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. #3729 et seq.) that allows private persons, including those who are known as “whistleblowers,” who possess knowledge of frauds committed against the United States to bring suits on its behalf. “When the nation won’t act on its own behalf,” he added, “Qui Tam provides the means for citizens to compel the government to fulfill its own duties and obligations under the law.”

“NIST was hanging out with the wrong crowd,” according to Dr. Wood. “Apparently the people hired to do the work of figuring out how the Twin Towers disappeared convinced NIST to focus on something else. NIST admitted to me in writing that it deliberately did not investigate the actual unraveling of the WTC.” In its letter of July 27, 2007, to Wood NIST acknowledged, “NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.”

Dr. Wood holds degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Fetzer added, “She is a former assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University and is arguably the best qualified 9/11 researcher in the world. I know of no one else whose qualifications come close to matching hers.”

Dr. Wood is well known in the 9/11 truth movement for alleging fraud and requesting correction of the official report prepared by NIST. In her recent Appeal of her Request for Correction (RFC), Wood presented compelling evidence that the Twin Towers were destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

She has also discovered that companies heavily invested in developing and manufacturing such black technology were also hired to work on the NIST project. They appear to have ignored evidence of DEW all around them, instead using their expertise to cover up the kind of weaponry employed.

Although NIST declined to correct NCSTAR 1 as demanded by Dr. Wood, NIST did respond in part by providing a specific definition of what it meant by the word "collapse" in its original report, NCSTAR 1, namely:

“a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure.”

This definition, however, turns out to be at odds with the basic premise of NCSTAR 1, insofar as the NIST never actually studied the events that fall within the scope of this novel definition. “That is fraud,” declared Dr. Wood. [http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070727_PROD01_003222.pdf]

“Indeed,” said Fetzer, who recently retired as a professor of philosophy after 35 years of college teaching, “that definition would even be consistent with the destruction of the building by means of a nuclear explosion, which flattened it and turned it to rubble. NIST did not explain how it happened.”

Dr. Wood’s federal Qui tam case asserts that the corporate and individual defendants committed actionable fraud under the False Claims Act. Her lawsuit seeks reimbursement of monies paid, penalties and interest.

“The most shocking claim,” Attorney Leaphart has observed, “may be that some of the defendants include those actually involved in development and manufacture of directed energy weapons and the development of covert psychological operations, which Wood claims were key ingredients in the events of 9/11.” Her complaint states, in part:

"[The] defendants…committed fraud in seeking to have NCSTAR 1 deceive the public into not recognizing that WTC1, 2 could not reasonably or possibly have been destroyed in the manner seen absent the use of DEW. Some of the defendants knew as much; other defendants either knew or if they did not, they should have known. To the extent they did not know, such ignorance was willful, intentional and actionable under the False Claims Act."

Leaphart’s office has already served the defendants with notice of the complaint that has been filed against them. Defendants named include Applied Research Associates (ARA), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Underwriters Laboratories, among others. “This should be very interesting,” said Fetzer. “I predict you’ll be hearing more about it. We are burrowing deeper and deeper into the reality of 9/11.”



Authors Website: 911scholars.org

Authors Bio: Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

More details here: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew, it'll very interesting to see how this case develops. Good luck to Dr Judy Wood in her efforts.

Regards

Ian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Pegasus. It remains to be seen how all this will unfold. It would seem to be true that this whole case is against the most powerful forces and we can only guess what they might do in response to this.

Whatever that may be, I think it is only right and proper than when enough evidence has been assembled, the criminals should be charged using the due process of the law.

Audio discussion here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr%20Judy%20Wood%20Jerry%20L eaphart%20-%20NIST%20Qui%20Tam%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%2011%20Oct%2020 07.mp3

or top link on here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=&sort=date&ord er=desc

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To petition NIST on the basis of Judy Wood's "theories" can only charitably be described as folly

I reckon it's true that alot of people agree with that view but chose not to post on this thread becuase they don't want to give this action any endorsement: and as evidence I call 176 views and only 2 posts: in comparison most threads have a 10 to 1 ratio for views to posts, which should see this thread on something like 18 posts by now

The ONLY positive about this is if it forces information into the open that can actually be used by the focused activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement

How much better it would be if it was based on challenges that had substance and were real?

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
To petition NIST on the basis of Judy Wood's "theories" can only charitably be described as folly

I reckon it's true that alot of people agree with that view but chose not to post on this thread becuase they don't want to give this action any endorsement: and as evidence I call 176 views and only 2 posts: in comparison most threads have a 10 to 1 ratio for views to posts, which should see this thread on something like 18 posts by now

The ONLY positive about this is if it forces information into the open that can actually be used by the focused activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement

How much better it would be if it was based on challenges that had substance and were real?


Hi John. Theories yes, but evidence besides. It's not good to decide what's real and whats unreal based on a belief system
Much of the antagonism promoted on these issues has been due to the reaction of the conventionalists as much as the wild-eyed evangelism of some beam weapon and np promoters
Personally, I think such theories should co-exist without controversial tags

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's not good to decide what's real and whats unreal based on a belief system


That's precisely my objection to Woods work: it can only be a belief system when it has no credible evidence

Thats simply my opinion: I don't expect anyone else to agree: I merely hold the view that a lot do, and am expressing that as part of my own opinion

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You wont draw me in John. There's a lot of credible evidence and I'm not about to make lists.
Wonder why this whole topic engenders hostility.
Suggests some root point.
Anyway love to you John, as has always been

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dh wrote:
You wont draw me in John. There's a lot of credible evidence and I'm not about to make lists.
Wonder why this whole topic engenders hostility.
Suggests some root point.
Anyway love to you John, as has always been


Much love to you to mate, and believe you me I'm fine with you seeing this however you want

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

It's not good to decide what's real and whats unreal based on a belief system

Why on earth would it be a belief system when Dr Wood's exhaustive research efforts and background have led her to the filing of a Qui Tam case? Why would Jerry Leaphart with his intricate knowledge and experience of law throw his career on the line with a case as disturbing as this if it had no real substance based on evidence!

I would be interested to know how many people have actually read Dr Wood's work and listened to the program as per Andrew's earlier link: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr%20Judy%20Wood%20Jerry%20L eaphart%20-%20NIST%20Qui%20Tam%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%2011%20Oct%2020 07.mp3

John, would it not be "folly" of law and academic professionals to be so convinced of their case if it was purely an exercise of ridicule which would surely ruin their livelyhood and reputation? Having said this, Steven Jones is as sure of his demolition/thermate theory, but has not filed a Qui Tam case.

Whichever is the real cause of the destruction at the WTC complex we need to be fully aware of every scientific possibility including DEW's. DEW's are now serious players in the field of contemporary warfare and unless we bring ourselves up to scratch with the likelyhood of their greater use we may never see the light at the end of the 9/11 tunnel.


Ian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
John, would it not be "folly" of law and academic professionals to be so convinced of their case if it was purely an exercise of ridicule which would surely ruin their livelyhood and reputation? Having said this, Steven Jones is as sure of his demolition/thermate theory, but has not filed a Qui Tam case.


Under normal circumstances, oh sure absolutely

However for a "poison the well" operation filing a law suit on the back of a catalogueof nonesense would be entirely what we might expect to see... and looney law cases happen in America rather a lot

I don't see Wood giving a damn for either her livelyhood OR her reputation in any case: hence the stuff about "snowballs evaporating upwards" and so forth being pushed in the first place

If the only basis of supporting this folly that you can see is "surely these 'professionals' would'nt do it if they wernt right?" then it seems to me you've been well and truly bamboozled, same as Andrew

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Bamboozled": I think not. If you can take the time to listen and digest exactly what Dr Woods is saying in her 35min presentation : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8344867178250739868 you may be able to comprehend how she has come to this conclusion. Also vist www.drjudywood.com to cross-examine more of her work.

If the thought of DEW's use frightens folk, then that is a very understandable emotion. But, let us not reject the very reality of its existence and experimentation because its overwhelming power is hard to conceive.

Sherlock Holmes declared: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Judy Wood used this fitting quote at the end of her presentation.

Regards

Ian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No its not frightening, its simply farcical

How is "beam weapons" any more "scary" than 9/11 inside job in the first place?

How is "beam weapons" more scary than nukes? Or bio weapons?

ITS NOT

Link up Judy Wood's site as much as you like: it only proves the point that the woman is a sad joke, played on anyone who can't see the obvious deficiencies in the conclusion she draws from the poverty of evidence she has gathered, which amounts to nothing more than her own self-delusion, assuming she is not deliberately trying to associate 9/11 Truth with the worst form of quackery

So kindly take your crude aspercion on my courage, or suggesting that anyone not taken in by fraudsters is somehow "weaker" than you or Andrew, elsewhere, and get over your own fear to start to comprehend that you've been done up a kipper and had again

Becuase to fail to confront that most certainly IS scary

Quote:
Sherlock Holmes declared: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Judy Wood used this fitting quote at the end of her presentation


Yep, the thinking of a fictional coke-addict just about sums up Wood nicely

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How is "beam weapons" any more "scary" than 9/11 inside job in the first place?
How is "beam weapons" more scary than nukes? Or bio weapons?


Beam weapons are far more scary than any weaponry I can think of, especially strategically. Think about it, it is a very covert piece of weaponry. In terms of DEW's one cannot see where the beam is being directed or where it originates from until the damage has been done. The technology is there and does exist. The ability for a nuclear warhead to be relocated, strategically set-up and passed through the various levels of security/clearances before being released requires a far greater amount of time and effort and therefore increases its likelyhood for being confiscated.
Further, because DEW's and such like are still officially seen as in the "experimental stage" any future experiments are seen as just experiments and not as any real or potential threat to a possible target.
Admittedly anything Nuclear, Biological and Chemical is still a very scary prospect indeed, however, the illusiveness of and scope of DEW's is far greater than anything NBC.
Comparing any existence of beam weaponry against the concept of 9/11 being an inside job...on your "most scary" scale...well as far as I'm concerned they are both a haunting prospect and cannot be compared. However, they may be linked to the same event as has already been discussed.
What is it that makes you refute this whole DEW idea? Is it Dr Woods that you have the problem with, or is it the idea that she might be on to something, or is it genuine whereby you cannot for the life of you grasp a single point she is making. Is she being scientific enough for you?
What is it John? Ellaborate in more detail.

Regards

Ian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its quite quite simple: its the evidence makes me reject it

Wood has been discussed debated and disected in great detail in truth controversies: I don't need to rehash that debate here. I will say my criticism of Wood is based on obvious false assertions and claims made about images that have other competant and credible explanations well within the grounds of high credibility. Ultimately, she is just plain wrong, often farcically, and it only appears to be people giving credance to some letters after her name that leads to her having any credibility whatsoever. Whatever she is doing, it is clearly an act of fantasy, NOT science

Andrew is breaking the site code of conduct just by posting this here, and he knows it. He ignores that becuase he thinks he has a truth that the rest of us are too "asleep" or "ignorant" to see with out his "help". I don't respect that, becuase it is the work of a preacher: and the hypocrasy of Andrews signature when he runs from the evidence, coupled with his disdain for the community he is part of by ignoring the balance put in place whilst simultaneously claiming opression becuase he cannot debate, entirely compromises his credibility in my eyes whatever else he may have in terms of past "track record": it reveals fundametalist thinking and a fundamentally flawed level of reasoning

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the no planes, particle beam weapon stuff is all part of an orchestrated diversion by agent provocateurs to point truthers in the wrong direction as credible demolition evidence continues to mount. Some who have since latched on to those theories may have the best of intentions but the original intent I believe was and still is a very negative one. These well poisoning theories have become the debunker favorites of Popular Mechanics as if by design. I’ve also noticed that some leaders of these absurd theories have actually petioned NIST ‘NOT’ to investigate the controlled demolition hypothesis. It really pisses me off actually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me wrote:
I think that the no planes, particle beam weapon stuff is all part of an orchestrated diversion by agent provocateurs to point truthers in the wrong direction as credible demolition evidence continues to mount. Some who have since latched on to those theories may have the best of intentions but the original intent I believe was and still is a very negative one. These well poisoning theories have become the debunker favorites of Popular Mechanics as if by design. I’ve also noticed that some leaders of these absurd theories have actually petioned NIST ‘NOT’ to investigate the controlled demolition hypothesis. It really pisses me off actually.


There's certainly FRAUD taking place amongst the NPT "evidence", thats clearly proven now, its simply not credible to consider "Social Services" has not deliberately decieved in "September Clues". Anyone taking part in that is playing with fire and would do far better to get out of it now: the system has learned not to underestimate the passion for 9/11 Truth and anyone putting out deliberately dodgy theories for whatever reasons of their own would be fools not to do the same

Truth will out

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
To petition NIST on the basis of Judy Wood's "theories" can only charitably be described as folly


I can see why 8000 readers on 911researchers read about this and praised it. Deluded and numbed baboons read the release they spout about "petition".

Idiots you got here Andrew! That is what 911truthers do! Petition, make doilies to sell, walk around in clown outfits ranting stupid slogans. Activists do things and these people actually went to court, filed a CASE and it is unsealed and ready to go.

This place is worse than a can of worms and I do not see why it does not just link up to 911flogger with an umbilical cord to pump bile back and forth.

Didn't you Brits do enough promoting the next god Shayler and promoting the new world order chief David Ray Gripmaster there in the UK?

Why not gather up some placards and go petition for the right to call the queen names or say bad things about her? Try and get that out of your laws. The only thing between being a serf and being an Englishman is they changed the word to appease the petitioners. You are a bunch of royal serfs without even a Constitution.

Enjoy Guy Fawkes day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

911Eyewitness wrote:
John White wrote:
To petition NIST on the basis of Judy Wood's "theories" can only charitably be described as folly


I can see why 8000 readers on 911researchers read about this and praised it. Deluded and numbed baboons read the release they spout about "petition".

Idiots you got here Andrew! That is what 911truthers do! Petition, make doilies to sell, walk around in clown outfits ranting stupid slogans. Activists do things and these people actually went to court, filed a CASE and it is unsealed and ready to go.

This place is worse than a can of worms and I do not see why it does not just link up to 911flogger with an umbilical cord to pump bile back and forth.

Didn't you Brits do enough promoting the next god Shayler and promoting the new world order chief David Ray Gripmaster there in the UK?

Why not gather up some placards and go petition for the right to call the queen names or say bad things about her? Try and get that out of your laws. The only thing between being a serf and being an Englishman is they changed the word to appease the petitioners. You are a bunch of royal serfs without even a Constitution.

Enjoy Guy Fawkes day.


Hi Dick!

Still lying low in the Kingdom of Spain are you Dick?

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The only thing between being a serf and being an Englishman is they changed the word to appease the petitioners. You are a bunch of royal serfs without even a Constitution.

Absolutely right, Rick. I love this guy.
From day one (9/11) I promoted for a long time, mostly on UK Indymedia which consistently took down a lot of my posts, that a 'Tesla' or 'scalar' type weapon took down the twin towers.Thats what it looked like and looks like to me. With no evidence other than the obvious pulverisation of steel and concrete. And also,the vaporisation of so many victims, and the news reports of the time of so many small shards of human tissue lined up in some lab awaiting dna identification.
Always seemed strange to me that there weren't more reports of body parts, limbs and heads ripped off, burned and charred bits of bodies. No -so many disappeared body evidence or little bits of tissue -steel and concrete flesh and bones all pulverised to a dust cloud that engulfed Manhatten.
Well, to be honest - that still remains my take.
And is only reinforced by the DEW folks further research.
No antagonism here

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

911Eyewitness wrote:
John White wrote:
To petition NIST on the basis of Judy Wood's "theories" can only charitably be described as folly


I can see why 8000 readers on 911researchers read about this and praised it. Deluded and numbed baboons read the release they spout about "petition".

Idiots you got here Andrew! That is what 911truthers do! Petition, make doilies to sell, walk around in clown outfits ranting stupid slogans. Activists do things and these people actually went to court, filed a CASE and it is unsealed and ready to go.

This place is worse than a can of worms and I do not see why it does not just link up to 911flogger with an umbilical cord to pump bile back and forth.

Didn't you Brits do enough promoting the next god Shayler and promoting the new world order chief David Ray Gripmaster there in the UK?

Why not gather up some placards and go petition for the right to call the queen names or say bad things about her? Try and get that out of your laws. The only thing between being a serf and being an Englishman is they changed the word to appease the petitioners. You are a bunch of royal serfs without even a Constitution.

Enjoy Guy Fawkes day.


And, for the record, what will you do when this gets wanged out of court and goes no-where? Claim the Judge is a shill?

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, John
No legal measures however deft will expose the mo. Worth a try nevertheless

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dh wrote:
Of course, John
No legal measures however deft will expose the mo. Worth a try nevertheless


Not if going to court on the basis of the flimsiest evidence sours the well for an attempt with a much greater chance of challenging the official story that can't be debunked in 5 minutes flat

Like reports of explosions in the basement not been factored by NIST and not included in the 9/11 commission, now disowned by its authors!

This case has the possibility of flushing out nothing what-so-ever: certainly if this supposed technology is as secret as the believers in it's use on 9/11 claim, its not going to be exposed in some freedom of information request

As for Wood, her theories are based on simply ignoring inconvienant fact and horrendous errors in understanding simple perspective, and won't stand a chance against even the most incompetant cross-examination

TBPF dh, if you really want to see justice done to the possibility you percieve that unknown tech was used on 9/11, you should be denouncing and distancing yourself from Wood and co, not giving them the thumbs up, becuase IF that is the truth, the only thing Wood is capable of acheiving is burying it beneath her quackery. It's certainly a decision much of the truth movement has already made, and if Rick "expolit that footage and deny i'm a truther on Fox news then call it a wonderful success" Seigal is attaching himself to it, theres another reason to leg it away swiftly. The last thing "I won an award" Seigal wants to do is actually risk his neck seeing any truth exposed

Another interesting question:

Where's the money coming from?

Certainly not from Andrew Johnson's back pocket!

Any answer to that one Seigal?

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nonsense, nonsense, nonsense John. Why do you seek to draw me into this
I've told what I perceive and I will not argue in any way
That is the diversion and diversiveness
Believe what you believe and me with mine
I'll certainly put the simple version out for those who believe the promoted 'science' while fervently assured of the 'back science' that's actually operative

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dh wrote:
nonsense, nonsense, nonsense John. Why do you seek to draw me into this
I've told what I perceive and I will not argue in any way
That is the diversion and diversiveness
Believe what you believe and me with mine
I'll certainly put the simple version out for those who believe the promoted 'science' while fervently assured of the 'back science' that's actually operative


Whose drawing? I'm doing what internet forums are for: commenting

If you don't like it, ignore it, but that doesnt make me wrong

If Woods was a Greer I'd look at her differently: but she's not and you and I both know it

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:


If Woods was a Greer I'd look at her differently: but she's not and you and I both know it

I think thats not jermain to this topic. Perhaps that's not the word. perhaps I'm going mad over the word jermain.You know what I mean.
It was Steven you were talking about

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dh wrote:
John White wrote:


If Woods was a Greer I'd look at her differently: but she's not and you and I both know it

I think thats not jermain to this topic. Perhaps that's not the word. perhaps I'm going mad over the word jermain.You know what I mean.
It was Steven you were talking about


Sure. Now I dont 100% know what I think about Greer but even so he often impresses me, and if he said "right I'm going to court to expose the existance of this technology" I'd at least give him over 50% odds of being fully prepared with a realistic shot at doing it

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Indubitably
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having looked at a number of videos and read a number of blogs I realised that Dr Woods has amassed a great deal of scientific evidence that the Twin Towers did NOT collapse but were destroyed by being pulverised to dust. The film from 9/11 DOES suggest this. She presents all sorts of evidence to support it. There is no structural collapse in the conventional sense of that term. I think Dr. Wood will have her day in court and I wish her well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Dr" Judy Wood and her theories are an embarrassment.
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Indubitably
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And your main argument against the thesis of Dr Wood is precisely what ?? Do you have one ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indubitably wrote:
And your main argument against the thesis of Dr Wood is precisely what ?? Do you have one ?


The most alarming thing at this stage is that Judy Wood still doesn't have a thesis.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group